It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lets say the OS was that the buildings had been taken down by explosives.....

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


You mean they actually build these little bitty model towers, with itty bitty steel beams, itty bitty floor trusses, microscopic bolts, nuts, windows, elevator shafts, elevators, doors, pipes, conduits, dampeners, concrete, filled with itty bitty generators, machinery, telephones, office supplies, etc etc etc? Really?


That is SOME attention to detail they do, a fully exact replica model of a building before they build the real thing, complete with minature welds, bolts, trusses, and beams. I mean wow! Care to show me some of these hyper realistic exact models of these buildings? Or bridges? You know, the bridges that are perfect miniaturized down to the nut and bolt and how they would exctly react to any external force. Please show me some of these! I've only seen the Lego versions!




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
i then guess all scaled model work thats done before building bridges boats planes cars and what not towers are just bull and not actual science, ...

Nah, they're usually designed to test one particular criteria, rather than all at once. Like wind loading, for example.


heck if i have time to morrow ill pour a few slabs and find me a tube that can fire a large beer can and watch the results for my self , heck ill even use chicken fence wire to mimic the outer mesh,..

and if i have time ill even pour a 1/2 gallon tank of gasoline on it just to see the effect of fire on it,..

Actually some of this has been done, but I can't remember offhand the name of the scientist. He's commonly quoted as disagreeing with the NIST report but he did fire soda cans at a model of the WTC using an air cannon.

I'll try and remember the guy's name so I can link you to it. I apologise for my bad memory



whats a good size 9ft x 2ft ?

The velocity is more important, there are to scale plots of the outer structure of the WTC available in the NIST report if you want to recreate that.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


LOL I wanted you to explain it because its not covered in the NIST report at all, and all the other debunkers keep dancing around it accusing me of lying and making things up. Dave even claims 'truthers' edited the collapse video to hide the 'penthouse collapse', when that is evidence for a controlled demolition. Hilarious stuff! When the pic was taken is irrelevant. They didn't sweep up the massive facade walls and dump them on top, they landed on top, ALL FOUR OF THEM, otherwise they would have either remained standing or been embedded in the other buildings around it.

I ask because if all four walls are on top of the rest of the building it had to be a controlled demolition.

Unless the building is dropped in the correct timed sequence the outer walls will fall to the path of least resistance, which would be outwards in this case. For all four walls to fall to the path of MOST resistance then the resistance from the center of the building had to go first. In an uncontrolled collapse if the center did drop there is still no reason the outer sections should drop at all let alone where the most resistance is, as in WTC 6...



For ALL four walls to fall inwards takes timed 'explosives', not chance...


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

So fire can accomplish something that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt?
Fire can do what timed explosives are normally needed to accomplish?
If you were as smart as you think you are, why are you not using this profound discovery to put Demolition Inc., out of business and make millions? I bet ya never thought of that huh? Let me know how your new business does...



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
You mean they actually build these little bitty model towers, with itty bitty steel beams, itty bitty floor trusses, microscopic bolts, nuts, windows, elevator shafts, elevators, doors, pipes, conduits, dampeners, concrete, filled with itty bitty generators, machinery, telephones, office supplies, etc etc etc? Really?


Wow you really have never had anything to do with mechanics, or engineering have you?

Yes they actually build detailed models, not so much as they used to with computers now.

Some of the details you mention are not needed though. You can test the strength of a structures design using any kind of material, because you are testing the mechanical nature of the structure not the materials used to make that structure. The strength of materials used is a known factor. For example if a structural design made of wood is tested for strength and its failure point measured, then you can figure out what how the same design will work with other known materials. Or even using bolts instead of welds etc.

With a building such as the WTC towers it's not so much the steel that gives it all its strength, its how that steel is organized, its mechanical design. For example a building with vertical columns, and horizontal beams, will not be as strong as one with beams at 45d angles. There is a reason buildings are designed to be redundant, in other words over engineered, or far more supports than it actually needs to hold itself up.



edit on 9/13/2010 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Making the penthouse of WTC7 collapse like 10 seconds before the rest of the collapse is evidence of a controlled demolition...? Did they just want to have fun with that part of the building?


Unless the building is dropped in the correct timed sequence the outer walls will fall to the path of least resistance


The massive object that just took out the floor going downwards wouldn't have any effect on those walls, eh? You know, like pulling them down into the collapse...


For all four walls to fall to the path of MOST resistance then the resistance from the center of the building had to go first


I can think of a rather large object the size of 20 or 30 odd floors falling that would make the center of the building "go" in a pretty aggressive manner while causing the perimeter to fall.


Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved


I don't think the WTC cared about the preservation of the surrounding buildings, demolition companies do. That's why only some will do it.


So fire can accomplish something that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt?


Did the WTC collapse do so in a manner that preserved the surrounding area?


If you were as smart as you think you are, why are you not using this profound discovery to put Demolition Inc.,


To my knowledge, if I was hired to demolish 2 buildings and ended up damaging multiple other buildings that also resulted in the collapse of another nearby building, I don't think I'd be doing too good.

PS: You still didn't answer my question about where and how you think it should have fallen and why. Also, please explain why things shouldn't fall straight down.

PSS: Why has this implosion that is designed for "preservation" of the surrounding buildings caused so much damage to the area?

PSSS: Stop misusing the term"path of least resistance"


edit on 13-9-2010 by Whyhi because: Hulkamania doesn't answer to you



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL I wanted you to explain it because its not covered in the NIST report at all, and all the other debunkers keep dancing around it accusing me of lying and making things up.

Yes it is, the vast majority of the information about WTC7 is available from the NIST report.


When the pic was taken is irrelevant. They didn't sweep up the massive facade walls and dump them on top, they landed on top, ALL FOUR OF THEM, otherwise they would have either remained standing or been embedded in the other buildings around it.

The east and west walls were embedded in the buildings next to them. Remember, there were streets around WTC7. The north wall impacted 30 west broadway and resulted in such severe damage it had to be torn down, and the southern wall collapsed into the same area as the rest of the debris.

What indicates to you that all four walls are on top of the pile? as far as I am aware it is the north wall.


Unless the building is dropped in the correct timed sequence the outer walls will fall to the path of least resistance, which would be outwards in this case.

The only way that the walls could fall outwards would be to sever the beams holding them in place. This would require much more energy and it is the path of least energy which is followed, not resistance. The 'path of least resistance' is not a term used in engineering, and is entirely applied by truthers.


So fire can accomplish something that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt?
Fire can do what timed explosives are normally needed to accomplish?

Nope, it damaged every building surrounding it, one severely enough to have it be torn down. WTC1 and 2 destroyed the local area. Nothing about what you have said here is accurate.


If you were as smart as you think you are, why are you not using this profound discovery to put Demolition Inc., out of business and make millions? I bet ya never thought of that huh? Let me know how your new business does...

Sorry buddy, but I've seen this point raised by truthers more times than I can count and you can find my answers above.

By the way, could you find anything inaccurate about my analysis, or any evidence that contradicts it?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The only way that the walls could fall outwards would be to sever the beams holding them in place. This would require much more energy and it is the path of least energy which is followed, not resistance. The 'path of least resistance' is not a term used in engineering, and is entirely applied by truthers.


Its much easier to topple a building over due to an unbalanced load configuration than it is to have it pancake on its footprint. Think of a house of cards does it pancake OR TIP OVER? It tips over!

Yes structural beams were weakened due to the raging fires and lack of adequate fireproofing, BUT how could they all weaken TO THE SAME DEGREE to allow for this cascading effect? Besides there were only a dozen stories above that critical level that could fail and stressen the entire frame.

The original story is highely unorthodox/suspect. It makes less sense then explosives going off, godzilla swinging his arms, ufo rocket attack, or any other crazy theory one could imagine!



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Its much easier to topple a building over due to an unbalanced load configuration than it is to have it pancake on its footprint. Think of a house of cards does it pancake OR TIP OVER? It tips over!

What makes you think that buildings are like trees or like houses of cards? They are not. Once a rotation of only a few degrees has occured, the majority of the structural components of any steel high-rise building will be compromised. They are in no way designed for this load and the building will collapse, rather than fall like a tree, as to do so it requires the building to oppose gravity even as the angles pass 45 degrees.

If you watch enough demolition videos, you might notice that concrete structures do tend to survive and topple like a tree, but brick structures (depending on scale) will often fail partially through the rotation and begin to fall downwards under gravity alone.


Yes structural beams were weakened due to the raging fires and lack of adequate fireproofing, BUT how could they all weaken TO THE SAME DEGREE to allow for this cascading effect? Besides there were only a dozen stories above that critical level that could fail and stressen the entire frame.

If you're talking about WTC1 and 2, the answer is that they did not. It was one particular side of each tower where the beams were heated to failure, that's why the top of the towers initially tilted in that direction. However, once the top of the towers has begun to tilt, all of that debris from the destruction is going to hit the massive floor slabs rather than the relatively tiny columns. These floor slabs were not designed for this load, and so the debris from the collapse is somewhat funneled into the towers, causing the outward peeling effect seen on so many videos.


The original story is highely unorthodox/suspect. It makes less sense then explosives going off, godzilla swinging his arms, ufo rocket attack, or any other crazy theory one could imagine!

If you think that, you have either learned all you know about the 'official story' from conspiracy websites, or you just don't know much about it at all. The 'official story' is supported widely by engineering groups such as the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, who's chairman released a statement denouncing conspiracy theories.

Do you really think these people are too dumb to understand their own jobs? How do you think they believe this?


edit on 13-9-2010 by exponent because: Clarifying (added steel high-rise in first paragraph)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Its much easier to topple a building over due to an unbalanced load configuration than it is to have it pancake on its footprint. Think of a house of cards does it pancake OR TIP OVER? It tips over!


Haven't built a house of cards in a while, have you...? You might want to do it. just for fun. It might even be educating.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
The massive object that just took out the floor going downwards wouldn't have any effect on those walls, eh? You know, like pulling them down into the collapse...


No it wouldn't. There is no way all four outer walls can be on top of the debris pile from a natural collapse.
I already explained why, if you are new to this please catch up by reading some posts...


I can think of a rather large object the size of 20 or 30 odd floors falling that would make the center of the building "go" in a pretty aggressive manner while causing the perimeter to fall.


That's because you are not thinking about it from any experience of mechanics. A collapse in the center will not cause all four outer walls to collapse on top of itself. I posted a pic of WTC 6 to show this fact. I also showed why this is impossible. I also showed what a controlled demo company has to do in order to cause all four walls to land on top of the debris pile, why do you think they bother if it can be done with being controlled?

Oh and WHAT object are you talking about? The only damage to WTC 7 was on ONE SIDE to the facade, there is NO evidence it damaged load bearing columns.



I don't think the WTC cared about the preservation of the surrounding buildings, demolition companies do. That's why only some will do it.


LOL actually I think they did, even that's completely irrelevant. But you quote out of context, the point of quoting that was to show it takes a controlled demo to make all four walls land on top of the debris pile, not a chance happening from fire.



Did the WTC collapse do so in a manner that preserved the surrounding area?


No it didn't and there is a reason for that, it was not possible. The towers were too tall and skinny to be imploded.
WTC7 would be one of the tallest ever demolished by implosion.


To my knowledge, if I was hired to demolish 2 buildings and ended up damaging multiple other buildings that also resulted in the collapse of another nearby building, I don't think I'd be doing too good.


What has this got to do with all four outer walls of WTC 7 being on top of the debris pile?


PS: You still didn't answer my question about where and how you think it should have fallen and why. Also, please explain why things shouldn't fall straight down.


I don't remember you ever asking me this question, but I have no problem answering it. I don't think it should have fallen at all. If anything it should have been just localized collapses, not a collapse that resulted in all four outer walls on top of the debris pile, in other words in its own footprint.


PSS: Why has this implosion that is designed for "preservation" of the surrounding buildings caused so much damage to the area?


Why are you so obsessed with "preservation" of the surrounding area? This has nothing to do with my point.
My point is the ONLY way you can get all four outer walls on top of the debris pile is by timing the collapse perfectly to cause an implosion. It IS done normally to preserve other buildings but its not the point of the argument.


PSSS: Stop misusing the term"path of least resistance"


Oh and how am I doing that? The path of least resistance is self explanatory.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
There is no way all four outer walls can be on top of the debris pile from a natural collapse.


Yes there is, which is what happened to WTC7


I already explained why,


No, you just stated it as if your opinion means it is a fact!


The only damage to WTC 7 was on ONE SIDE to the facade, there is NO evidence it damaged load bearing columns.


Wrong again, you "forget" the bulging wall, and the noises the building was making, and that the fire brigade professionals saw it was going to collapse!


My point is the ONLY way you can get all four outer walls on top of the debris pile is by timing the collapse perfectly to cause an implosion.


Except that is just not true, as has been shown many times here!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

That's why NIST relied primarily on computer modelling supported by verification experiments where possible.


It is regrettable that NIST has not published these alleged models nor provided computer visualisations in support of its findings. A consequence of this of course is that its work cannot be properly examined and tested by others.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by winston_jones
It is regrettable that NIST has not published these alleged models nor provided computer visualisations in support of its findings. A consequence of this of course is that its work cannot be properly examined and tested by others.

The former is regrettable, but NIST did provide quite a few visualisations to support their findings.

Some of their model data has been released, but some is being witheld for public safety. I don't tend to agree, I think NIST should just release all of the structural data. It's been a long time since the WTCs existed.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


riddle me this :

how does a building filled with asbestos burn ?

just have to ask.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
riddle me this :

how does a building filled with asbestos burn ?

just have to ask.

The asbestos didn't burn, the paper, files, desks, seats, carpets, computers etc did. If you want more detail on the office environments in the WTC and how high their combustible load was, please see NISTs tests on the matter here for single workstations and here for multiple workstations.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


a follow up on the previous


and this asbestos that didnt burn is located where ?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
and this asbestos that didnt burn is located where ?

Some of the towers structural fireproofing was asbestos, some was a replacement after asbestos became prohibited.

Do you have a point here? I'm struggling to find it.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
No it wouldn't. There is no way all four outer walls can be on top of the debris pile from a natural collapse.
I already explained why, if you are new to this please catch up by reading some posts...

Do you have any proof that it was all four outer walls? I am not seeing the evidence of this. Do you have any evidence to show that it cannot happen naturally? What is the limit of the building size before which it can happen?


That's because you are not thinking about it from any experience of mechanics. A collapse in the center will not cause all four outer walls to collapse on top of itself. I posted a pic of WTC 6 to show this fact.

WTC6 is not comparable with WTC7. Primarily because it was under a fifth of the height at 8 stories compared to 47.


I also showed why this is impossible. I also showed what a controlled demo company has to do in order to cause all four walls to land on top of the debris pile, why do you think they bother if it can be done with being controlled?

They don't necessarily have all four walls land on the debris pile. They avoid other buildings. Neither WTC1,2 or 7 avoided damaging other buildings when it collapsed. It was not the same as a controlled demolition.


Oh and WHAT object are you talking about? The only damage to WTC 7 was on ONE SIDE to the facade, there is NO evidence it damaged load bearing columns.

The damage to WTC7 was pretty reasonable, there is plenty of evidence it damaged load paths. For example, firefighters set up a transit to measure the movement of a corner of WTC7 above serious damage. If these columns did not bear load, the building would not be moving.


Oh and how am I doing that? The path of least resistance is self explanatory.

Really? What units are resistance measured in?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by exponent
 


LOL I wanted you to explain it because its not covered in the NIST report at all, and all the other debunkers keep dancing around it accusing me of lying and making things up. Dave even claims 'truthers' edited the collapse video to hide the 'penthouse collapse', when that is evidence for a controlled demolition. Hilarious stuff!


You are so full of it, Anok. If the Penthouse collapsed into the interior of WTC 7...and I've shown unedited video that says it did...then it means it gives credibility to the NIST report becuase it was a partial collapse, rather than a simultaneous collapse as every controlled demolitions job on Earth is set up to do. No controlled demolitions ever blows up a building from the inside out in the way the WTC 7 building fell.

In case it hasn't occurred to you...and apparently it hasn't...you're AGREEING with 95% of the NIST report you're insisting is "a pack of lies". The collapse of WTC 1 damaged WTC 7 and cut off the water and power grid, allowing fires to burn out of control, followed by a loss of structural integrity in the interior which caused a partial collapse within the interior of WTC 7, followed by a total collapse. The only 2% difference is that you insist the structural failure was caused by these hypothetical controlled demolitions, rather than fire damage.

The remaining 3% is the details you pretend aren't true (I.E. the three story bulge in the southwest corner) becuase you know your conspiracy stories can't explain it, therefore you ignore it the same way Paris Hilton ignores celibacy. Well, maybe not that bad, but you get the idea.


When the pic was taken is irrelevant. They didn't sweep up the massive facade walls and dump them on top, they landed on top, ALL FOUR OF THEM, otherwise they would have either remained standing or been embedded in the other buildings around it.


This is a pretty ridiculous statement, even for you. Since it fell inward onto itself...and the interior had already partially collapsed so there wasn't any internal support to stop it from collapsing inward, then of course "all four of the walls are going o land on top". When you fold a box inward you're going to see the outer sides of the box, not the inner sides. What do you expect to happen, the walls are going to flip around before falling?

This isn't research. This is your blind zealotry getting you to shove your beloved "controlled demolitons" stories into any nook or cranny you can find to fit it in.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


the circular reasoning goes as follows ,

the core structure failed due to fires which according to nist resulted in a pancake collapse ,

but the central core of the towers where insulated with asbestos ,

and the asbestos was not removed , they where still struggeling in court till may of 2001 to get funds to remove it. ,

so how can you have both , a fire proof inner core and a fire that makes steel melt and results in a collapse,



new topics




 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join